The referenced article says the fragments were 50-800 km across. An 800km object 600-8000km from earth would not need a telescope! The original article says 46-795m.
Roy FIelding (who invented the term in his PhD thesis) described it as as "architectural style". See http://www.ics.uci.edu/~fielding/pubs/dissertation/abstract.htm
Of course it's a violation of copyright to use other people's photos without permission. But why on earth would anyone want to put up their family photos for the whole world to see in the first place?
Does this part of the benchmark produce a result or output, and if so is it correct?
And if it doesn't produce any output or a result that's checked, there is plenty of scope for innocent explanations. It could be a bug that doesn't arise when the extra statements are added. Or it could be that part of the code is being optimised away (because the result isn't used) and the analysis isn't clever enough to handle it when the extra statements are present.
This is not about expressing an objectionable belief. The guy in question was not expressing his beliefs at all. He boasted that he was trolling - and that's what a troll is, someone who makes statements not because they believe in them, but to hurt other people and cause outrage. I see no reason why that should be given the same protection as expressing your beliefs.
So called security experts - most of them in fact peddlers of software who depend on the fear of malware for their incomes - are not unbiased commentators. Remember how USL claimed that Unix was too complicated for Berkeley grad students to have replicated without copying their proprietary code? And SCO claimed that Linux couldn't possibly be that good without belonging to them? In fact, there's no software "so sophisticated" that it can't be produced by a bunch of sufficiently dedicated geeks.
It's an argument particularly appealing to conspiracy theorists - look at how the authors of "The Holy Blood and The Holy Grail" insisted that no-one would expend the effort to forge the documents they relied on, even after the hoax was admitted. You just can't judge this kind of thing on that basis.
The first paragraph of the article is just nonsense. It claims that if we knew P=NP "computers would acquire mind-boggling powers such as near-perfect translation,...". Wow! Imagine that! All we have to do is prove a theorem and suddenly we can write amazingly fast programs. But of course, we could just *assume* that P=NP and write the same programs. All a proof would do is give us some hope (or fear) that various problems would turn out to be more tractable than otherwise.
"Select the gender of all second children where the first child was born on a Tuesday and the first child was male." Yes, it will be 50/50 male and female. "Select the gender of all first children where the second child was born on a Tuesday and the second child was male." Again it will be 50/50. But the gender split in the union of those two groups will *not* be 50/50. You have counted the families with two boys born on a Tuesday twice. 1 in 14 of the first group will also be in the second group. Taking the union correctly, 7 out of 14 in the first group will have two boys, and 6 out of 13 of those in the second group *not already counted* will be boys. In total, 13 out of 27 will be boys.
Using "s" to refer to a string and "c" to refer to successive characters in it is a common C idiom, and will be immediately understood by any competent C programmer.
You knew the game had this DRM, you knew that it was susceptible to server crashes, you whined about it endlessly, AND THEN YOU WENT OUT AND BOUGHT IT ANYWAY. How stupid can you get? Ubisoft must be laughing their heads off.
Why are the comments of the owner of what I assume is some kind of sports team of any interest? Is this person well know in American technology circles?
Slashdot Mirror
The referenced article says the fragments were 50-800 km across. An 800km object 600-8000km from earth would not need a telescope! The original article says 46-795m.
They'd have got him much sooner if he hadn't been waiting for a white iPhone.
Roy FIelding (who invented the term in his PhD thesis) described it as as "architectural style". See http://www.ics.uci.edu/~fielding/pubs/dissertation/abstract.htm
There's no such thing as a clean copy of Windows.
Apple deserve bashing for this. And it is a story; it shows the absurdity of their policies.
http://www.reghardware.com/2011/03/03/3d_printer_makes_food
Of course it's a violation of copyright to use other people's photos without permission. But why on earth would anyone want to put up their family photos for the whole world to see in the first place?
if IPv6 is "a board-level risk management concern", then I certainly can safely ignore it, and so can pretty well every Slashdot reader.
Did they weigh the copper wires to the electrodes before and after?
The smell from their shops is so strong that it's actually unpleasant to stand at a nearby bus stop.
He's Jim Gettys, not Getty.
Does the author have any idea what that term really means?
Does this part of the benchmark produce a result or output, and if so is it correct?
And if it doesn't produce any output or a result that's checked, there is plenty of scope for innocent explanations. It could be a bug that doesn't arise when the extra statements are added. Or it could be that part of the code is being optimised away (because the result isn't used) and the analysis isn't clever enough to handle it when the extra statements are present.
This is not about expressing an objectionable belief. The guy in question was not expressing his beliefs at all. He boasted that he was trolling - and that's what a troll is, someone who makes statements not because they believe in them, but to hurt other people and cause outrage. I see no reason why that should be given the same protection as expressing your beliefs.
I see the OSDV Foundation's slogan is "Re-inventing How America Votes".
So called security experts - most of them in fact peddlers of software who depend on the fear of malware for their incomes - are not unbiased commentators. Remember how USL claimed that Unix was too complicated for Berkeley grad students to have replicated without copying their proprietary code? And SCO claimed that Linux couldn't possibly be that good without belonging to them? In fact, there's no software "so sophisticated" that it can't be produced by a bunch of sufficiently dedicated geeks.
It's an argument particularly appealing to conspiracy theorists - look at how the authors of "The Holy Blood and The Holy Grail" insisted that no-one would expend the effort to forge the documents they relied on, even after the hoax was admitted. You just can't judge this kind of thing on that basis.
The first paragraph of the article is just nonsense. It claims that if we knew P=NP "computers would acquire mind-boggling powers such as near-perfect translation, ...". Wow! Imagine that! All we have to do is prove a theorem and suddenly we can write amazingly fast programs. But of course, we could just *assume* that P=NP and write the same programs. All a proof would do is give us some hope (or fear) that various problems would turn out to be more tractable than otherwise.
Since when were we under any obligation to be fair to private enterprise?
"And yet more money get syphoned out of the IT industry into the lawyers pockets."
You mean, out of the advertising industry.
"Select the gender of all second children where the first child was born on a Tuesday and the first child was male." Yes, it will be 50/50 male and female. "Select the gender of all first children where the second child was born on a Tuesday and the second child was male." Again it will be 50/50.
But the gender split in the union of those two groups will *not* be 50/50. You have counted the families with two boys born on a Tuesday twice. 1 in 14 of the first group will also be in the second group. Taking the union correctly, 7 out of 14 in the first group will have two boys, and 6 out of 13 of those in the second group *not already counted* will be boys. In total, 13 out of 27 will be boys.
Using "s" to refer to a string and "c" to refer to successive characters in it is a common C idiom, and will be immediately understood by any competent C programmer.
You knew the game had this DRM, you knew that it was susceptible to server crashes, you whined about it endlessly, AND THEN YOU WENT OUT AND BOUGHT IT ANYWAY. How stupid can you get? Ubisoft must be laughing their heads off.
Presumably they incurred costs as a result of EDS not providing what they were supposed to.
Sky and EDS - it couldn't happen to two nicer companies. With luck no-one will win except the lawyers.
Why are the comments of the owner of what I assume is some kind of sports team of any interest? Is this person well know in American technology circles?
Google for "billion laughs".